The less biased Great Joker Debate

[Buhallin]

Wyrd has made quite a few mistakes in the mechanics of Malifaux, why not this one?

"Mistake" is a highly relative term to begin with, but it's also not what we're talking about (at least not what I was talking about in the post you quoted). The question is not whether they made a mistake in Hard to Wound. The question is whether it matches their intent.

Does Wyrd INTEND for the Red Joker to work the way it does, up to and including how it interacts with H2W? I think the responses from the top hats have shown unanimously that it's working exactly the way they intend for it to work. You can disagree with the way they've chosen for it to work, or think it makes a worse game, etc - that's fine. But the standard gamer deployment of "intent" as "The devs actually agree with me even though it's not exactly what the rule says" doesn't really have a place in the discussion here.

[Jonas Albrecht]

But the standard gamer deployment of "intent" as "The devs actually agree with me even though it's not exactly what the rule says" doesn't really have a place in the discussion here.

And neither does the "guys stop talking about this" attitude permeating this thread.

And I'm defining "mistake" as "everything that has been errata'd".

[Malovane]

I'd like to see Hard to Wound tweaked, or some models with HtW given a special rule that tones down the RJ a little on a damage flip. Seamus being nailed for 11 in one go because someone farmed the Red Joker on a :-fate:-fate is, in my opinion, weaksauce and goes against the intent of Hard to Wound.

Debating intent is always rather difficult. Here's my opinion - having to rely on luck/fishing to get a RJ off makes HtW extremely powerful. I would much rather be holding the RJ in my hand and tactically decide when to cheat it in for big damage. Generally, that's a foolish tactic to try against ressers because of HtW - you'll rarely see an even damage flip against them to begin with. This naturally makes it a wiser decision to try to cycle the RJ and get lucky. Due to cycling the RJ becoming the favorable move, you'll naturally see opponent's get "lucky" more often - because they aren't holding the RJ in their hand.

Preventing your opponent from cheating in RJ, severes, or even moderates is very powerful. I don't see the intent of HtW being the removal/reduction of "critical" damage. I see the intent of HtW being an average reduction in damage suffered along with forcing your opponent to rely more on luck and less on fate manipulation (card cheating). By its very nature, HtW forces the game back into a more luck based situation.

I've got to say - being able to cheat in the RJ as Seamus on that big pistol shot exactly when I want it feels a lot better than being on the other side of the coin and having to rely on luck.

More discussion please, I've found it to be rather constructive and informative so far - for the most part. Less venomous attitude from both sides would be nice. Of course, its tough to determine tone in text; could just be a side effect of the prose.

Regardless, Dustcrusher's blog had a good collection of possible changes.

http://www.wyrd-games.net/entry.php?159-Amateur-Rulemaking-the-Red-Joker

Hard to Wound reduces the severity of the additional flip when a Red Joker shows up for damage by one i.e. HtW 1 makes any Severe a Moderate, and HtW2 reduces Severe and Moderate to Weak.

I find this to be the most interesting recommendation. It leaves the strength of the RJ alone and bumps the strength of HtW a bit. Would such a change be enough to ameliorate the situation or does a prospective change need to go farther? Basically, this would reduce the max potential damage by a number of steps equal to the level of Hard to Wound. It won't mean absolute survival after taking a RJ hit, but it tweaks it just a touch.

Those on the other side of the debate - are you opposed to such a change? do you feel such a change would be going too far? so on and so forth

Edited July 13, 2012 by Malovane

[Dustcrusher]

If you don't like the way it works, fine - that's up to every player.

But I think they've made the "intent" pretty clear, and this ongoing charade that Wyrd has somehow failed to grasp that they screwed up implementing H2W and they still just haven't realized it...<hyperbole>

The word "intended" was way more charged than I meant it to be :facepalm: Poor choice of words- that's my fault, but I'm going to leave my prior post because a) it makes the next few look random if I don't and I like to think it's more honest to just own up to my gaffes than to pretend they never happened.

I'll try again: "In my opinion, Hard to Wound shouldn't be completely ignored by the Red Joker. It doesn't feel right to me based on my understanding of what Hard to Wound represents."

Hopefully that makes clear that this is how I would like to see it, and nothing more.

I don't think they've failed to realize anything about it. Multiple top hats have been here, as you said, and it's been brought up enough before, so even if they think we're loonies, they know a few of us would like them to take a second look at some point.

The one request I have is that they examine this interaction and verify they want to keep it the same before sending Malifaux 2.0 off to the printer. That's it.

Edited July 13, 2012 by Dustcrusher
grammar error

[Buhallin]

And neither does the "guys stop talking about this" attitude permeating this thread. (have a place)

Honestly... why not?

"I don't like the way a Red Joker acts on a damage flip" has been done to death. There are no new points to it, from any side. There weren't any new points the last time it came up, or the last time it took over a Seamus tactica, or the time before that, or the one before that. Every response from anyone in Wyrd has been as authoritative and unequivocal as can be - they understand exactly what people don't like about it, but they think it adds to the game. A large majority of players seem fine with it as it is, so there's not much public pressure on them to change it. "Can we please shut up about it now?" is the way a lot of people feel. I'm all for tilting at windmills - I've been known to take a pass or two at them myself - but getting tired of people tilting at windmills is not some massive unforgivable deployment of rudeness. At this point, we should start regular arguments about converting Malifaux to dice instead of cards - it's probably about as popular, and about as likely.

Declaring "as intended" on H2W isn't out of place because it's rude or I took some meta-level offense to the conversation. It's out of place because it's as provably false as anything going on in this debate. Dustcrusher acknowledges this (which is very cool of him) and we can move on.

[Jonas Albrecht]

Honestly... why not?

"I don't like the way a Red Joker acts on a damage flip" has been done to death. There are no new points to it, from any side. There weren't any new points the last time it came up, or the last time it took over a Seamus tactica, or the time before that, or the one before that. Every response from anyone in Wyrd has been as authoritative and unequivocal as can be - they understand exactly what people don't like about it, but they think it adds to the game. A large majority of players seem fine with it as it is, so there's not much public pressure on them to change it. "Can we please shut up about it now?" is the way a lot of people feel. I'm all for tilting at windmills - I've been known to take a pass or two at them myself - but getting tired of people tilting at windmills is not some massive unforgivable deployment of rudeness. At this point, we should start regular arguments about converting Malifaux to dice instead of cards - it's probably about as popular, and about as likely.

Declaring "as intended" on H2W isn't out of place because it's rude or I took some meta-level offense to the conversation. It's out of place because it's as provably false as anything going on in this debate. Dustcrusher acknowledges this (which is very cool of him) and we can move on.

To answer the first part: Forums aren't static entities. If a new player comes to the board with the same concerns about the Red Joker, it's not up to the board to decide they need to be shouted down. Juding by this thread, which is my entry point into this conversation, you wouldn't know that Wyrd even has an opinion until you get to Ratty's second post. You say that ever response from anyone in Wyrd has been as authortative and unequivocal, but one can see that isn't true just by reading through this thread. If Wyrd thinks this topic is a plague, they can issue a brief statement and sticky it. If you think the topic is a plague, you can stop responding to it, instead of working towards making people feel like this isn't the best place to discuss Malifaux rules.

[Buhallin]

There's a very big difference between a new player making a comment about the Red Joker and the usual suspects taking yet another pass at the exact same topic of dislike they've brought up time and again, and promising to keep doing so time and again.

But I guess that's the price we pay for ensuring new users don't risk exposure to the search function.

[Jonas Albrecht]

There's a very big difference between a new player making a comment about the Red Joker and the usual suspects taking yet another pass at the exact same topic of dislike they've brought up time and again, and promising to keep doing so time and again.

Is that not the reason this thread was made? To have this conversation here, and not in every other thread?

[FoolWithTheFez]

Honestly... why not?

Because it doesn't belong in any thread. If you don't wish to participate in a voluntary discussion, you can always choose not to. There is no sense in joining in just to say people shouldn't be talking about a subject. If everyone cares enough about or derives enough enjoyment from a topic it will be discussed, no matter how much some may wish it weren't.

[Q'iq'el]

Is that not the reason this thread was made? To have this conversation here, and not in every other thread?

So it may be, but when the problems are of ideological nature, you really cannot discuss them, at least not without some serious moderation.

Sure, I understand the argument for free exchange of the opinion on an Internet Forum (doh), but there's also a lot to be said for simple realization there are discussions which simply have no possible conclusion here.

In other words, this is exactly the subject for a Q&A with the designers during Gencon or on some other such forum, where the points of the other side can be explained quickly and the participants don't get unnecessarily personal.

Then put it on Youtube and sticky the link for future generations.

Nothing wrong with acknowledging it isn't possible (or at least productive) to discuss every subject on the internet forums.

---------- Post added at 02:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:37 PM ----------

And by the way, the purpose of the thread, judging by the poll on the top, was not only to discuss the matter but also to gauge how the community splits on it.

Seeing how on most controversial issues community tends to split evenly, I think we have a one case where there's really very little left to discuss - the community seems rather in favor of current mechanics.

[Math Mathonwy]

Debating intent is always rather difficult. Here's my opinion - having to rely on luck/fishing to get a RJ off makes HtW extremely powerful. I would much rather be holding the RJ in my hand and tactically decide when to cheat it in for big damage. Generally, that's a foolish tactic to try against ressers because of HtW - you'll rarely see an even damage flip against them to begin with. This naturally makes it a wiser decision to try to cycle the RJ and get lucky. Due to cycling the RJ becoming the favorable move, you'll naturally see opponent's get "lucky" more often - because they aren't holding the RJ in their hand.

But the problem is that without RJ showing up H2W is, according to many people here, too powerful. But RJ showing up "balances" H2W only in every second game or third game usually. Having an ability be balanced across games but not within a single game is bad design in a game which is supposed to be played once (as opposed to being a campaign-based). When the RJ shows up, H2W is too weak, when it doesn't, it's too powerful.

Honestly... why not?

"I don't like the way a Red Joker acts on a damage flip" has been done to death.

"RJ has been done to death" has been way more done to death. It adds absolutely nothing. If you're not interested in the conversation, go away. Maybe start other conversations if it tickles your fancy, but telling others to not have a conversation is rude and stupid. Or you may stay, but don't expect me to stop talking just because you're not interested (but still read and post).

[Jonas Albrecht]

Seeing how on most controversial issues community tends to split evenly' date=' I think we have a one case where there's really very little left to discuss - the community seems rather in favor of current mechanics.[/quote']

I'd like to see your data on this claim.

As far as discussing this, no limited events with limited access like GenCon are not the way to handle discussions regarding the rules. That's a very strange conclusion. This forum, right here, where you have the largest concentration of Malifaux players, is where to have the conversation. So far the Red Joker discussion has been attributed to everything from whining to bad playing, and you're acting like the people who want to have the discussion are the ones being contentious?

[dgraz]

For all the folks that claim to know why this thread was created but apparently haven't read any of my posts.

This is about the Red Joker, if you believe that H2W needs a change then make your own poll.

The main reason I posted this poll was to try and put the RJ debate to bed.

The sad part of it is that even if it were 99% it wouldn't be enough for some people and it would still clutter up pages of the forum and completely derail other discussions.

[Jonas Albrecht]

So what you're saying is you want those who wish to keep discussing this to start yet another Red Joker thread?

[Q'iq'el]

I'd like to see your data on this claim.

See the top of the page please.

[Jonas Albrecht]

See the top of the page please.

That in no way backs up your claim that "most controversial issues community tends to split evenly".

[dgraz]

So what you're saying is you want those who wish to keep discussing this to start yet another Red Joker thread?

Nope. Just go ahead and keep doing what ya'll have been doing. Go derail every thread you possibly can. I'm sure Wyrd will change the RJ mechanic if you complain about it enough.

That's what you wanted to hear right?

[Jonas Albrecht]

It's weird, I've spent the last couple of pages not actually discussing the premise of the thread (frankly the only conclusion I can come to without playtesting is that crews with a significant H2W presence face, among other oddities, a higher likelihood of having the RJ flipped against them for damage).

So, let me ask you all who desperately want this topic to go away: If I make a thread about Hard to Wound, can I expect the same belligerence towards that topic as well?

[Q'iq'el]

As far as discussing this, no limited events with limited access like GenCon are not the way to handle discussions regarding the rules. That's a very strange conclusion.

But here lies the issue. This is not a discussion about the rules. Everybody knows what the rules are. Both sides of the argument understand the odds and the consequences of the current ruleset. One side doesn't like the results, the other likes them a lot.

At that point it isn't a discussion about the rules, but a discussion about the general direction the game designers should choose in the future - keep the current course or veer towards more predictability and tone down the big swings a bit (note at least some of the opponents of the status quo argue they don't want the random elements to go away completely either, just the extreme cases toned down).

This is exactly what you should talk about directly with the designers. Sure, such events are restricted and not everybody can take part - if you feel strongly about it and love the game though, there's no loss in saving up a bit and going to an event such as Gencon. At the very least, you will be heard and her the designers side of things. At the very best, you may convince them to take a second look at these cases where the swing simply may be too big to enjoy the game.

The plus side of such events is that whatever gets talked about is far more likely to be taken into deeper consideration than internet campaigns.

Edited July 14, 2012 by Q'iq'el

[Jonas Albrecht]

Nope. Just go ahead and keep doing what ya'll have been doing. Go derail every thread you possibly can. I'm sure Wyrd will change the RJ mechanic if you complain about it enough.

That's what you wanted to hear right?

See, you don't even know what side of the issue I'm on yet (because I don't even know), and you're already ascribing motives to me that fit your narrative of the overall discussion.

[Q'iq'el]

That in no way backs up your claim that "most controversial issues community tends to split evenly".

Ahh, this part of my post. Well, from my experience they do. No data, because the search feature is pain. Even if I'm wrong on the general statement, which to speak frankly wasn't necessary at all, on this subject we have a rather solid result with a decent vote count too.

Edited July 14, 2012 by Q'iq'el

[Jonas Albrecht]

This is exactly what you should talk about directly with the designers. Sure' date=' such events are restricted and not everybody can take part - if you feel strongly about it and love the game though, there's no loss in saving up a bit and going to an event such as Gencon. At the very least, you will be heard and her the designers side of things. At the very best, you may convince them to take a second look at these cases where the swing simply may be too big to enjoy the game.[/quote']

A quick aside, the people at the Wyrd Booth generally didn't have time to sit and chat with customers about contentious rules. They were super busy moving huge amounts of product.

I'm sorry Qi, but there's no way I can get behind the notion that, to have a meaningful discussion of the game you must have access to the designers in person.

[Q'iq'el]

I said Q&A session. Perhaps there's time for one. And I don't think in person is necessary - that was just a proposition for a cool event. IRC would be fine too, I guess (or some other form of online conference).

The point is forms tend to lead to failure whenever the conversation goes beyond things at hand and starts to touch development paths, designers' vision and especially players' wishes for the future shape of the game.

[Jonas Albrecht]

Ahh' date=' this part of my post. Well, from my experience they do. No data, because the search feature is pain. Even if I'm wrong on the general statement, which to speak frankly wasn't necessary at all, on this subject we have a rather solid result with a decent vote count too.[/quote']

I doubt you would extend me the same courtesy if I just started making claims based on my memory of events that went against what you thought.

---------- Post added at 02:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:47 AM ----------

[Q'iq'el]

I doubt you would extend me the same courtesy if I just started making claims based on my memory of events that went against what you thought.

And what data do you base that on? Besides, we're speaking about a claim irrelevant to the entire argument. I shouldn't have made it in the first place and so I said. I apologize if it causes you a distress, but I wasn't even speaking about the results of the matches, odds or any hard data - merely of perception of the perception of the controversial issues among the players.

Can we try to be strict and to the matter on less ephemeral topics?

I disagree that forums don't make good places to have these kinds of discussions but even if I didn't, trying to get me to trade them for a hypothetical future discussion format would be a non-starter.

You have the very proof in front of your eyes - this very thread and many before that. You just refuse to see past the dust and realize this is not rules discussion and not an exchange of opinions about what the Malifaux can become in the future, but ideological tug war about one very narrow problem - randomness. This tug war has been repeated on every single miniature gaming forum I know and typically to the same end.

So if someone wants to understand why the mechanics are as they are, they should talk to the person making the decisions. Even if the designers posted their explanation here, it will result in just another such thread. This is the nature of the beast - it works for discussions on concrete issues, it doesn't work when we cross the line to ideology.